Cleary, T.J. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of
student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.
Literature Review
The reason I chose to review Cleary and Zimmermans’s (2004) article was due to my interest in Zimmerman’s Model of Self-Regulation and I wanted to read other research he has completed relating to self-regulated learning. I was also interested in this study because this training program was implemented in a middle school setting.
Problem
This case study implemented a training program, Self-Regulation Empowerment Program (SREP), which focused on how middle school students could be empowered to obtain greater control over their learning and become more proactive, self-motivated learners. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) describe how numerous middle school students lack self-efficacy, the belief of possessing the ability to learn a particular academic task, which may lead to breakdowns in academic self-regulation such as lack of attention in class, not preparing for tests, and even choosing not to attend school. Middle school students are expected to engage in more independent study time, usually are assigned more homework, and are expected to be able to manage the different assignments from several teachers. To be able to accomplish all of this, students need to have a collection of study and self-regulation strategies they can apply to their learning. Many struggling middle school students do not possess self-regulatory skills that they can access.
SREP was developed from social-cognitive theory and research that integrates features of the problem-solving approach with Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulation. Zimmerman’s model, which includes three cyclical phases of forethought, performance control, and self-reflection, illustrates the process students should use to regulate their academic behavior and beliefs. SREP is a two-part approach in which a SRC (self-regulated learning coach) uses microanalytic assessment procedures to assess students’ self-regulated thinking and study strategies, and then trains students to use these strategies along with newly learned strategies in a cyclical, self-regulation feedback loop.
In part one, diagnostic assessment, students are presented with specific learning situations or problems and asked how they would handle these problems. This assessment evaluates students’ knowledge base of learning strategies and identifies the motivational and strategic weaknesses in students. The ultimate goal of the SRC during part two, developing the self-regulated learner, is to modify and change students’ deficits to strengths by empowering and instilling in the students that academic success is under their control. Students are taught various study and learning strategies as well as self-regulation strategies. Then students are taught how to use the cyclical, self-regulation feedback loop. This program is not based on a script or manual of specific procedures that must be followed and allows for adaptations and modifications to meet the specific motivational and self-regulated needs of each individual student. SREP was pilot tested with a variety of middle school students in a suburban school district.
Implementation and Results
Anna, a 12-year-old Caucasian student, participated in the implementation of SREP. This case study demonstrated the procedures for implementing the components and steps in a secondary setting as well as the processes and techniques used by an SRC. Anna participated in eight 35-minute sessions of individualized training with the SRC. After analysis of Anna’s performance, it was determined that she was performing poorly in science. The SRC examined Anna’s repertoire of the study strategies she used to prepare for science exams and results showed Anna had limited knowledge of effective study strategies. The SRC used microanalytic procedures and asked Anna various forethought, performance control, and self-reflection phase questions while Anna thought aloud as she performed her study strategies.
The miroanalytic assessment showed that Anna was engaged in a negative motivational cycle with low self-efficacy perceptions, poor self-awareness of the causes of her struggles, and the belief that she could not improve her failing grades. The SRC used graphing procedures to improve her self-awareness of her study strategies and showed the link between ineffective study strategies and failing grades. During training sessions, the SRC and Anna discussed and practiced applying several alternative strategies that Anna could use while studying for her science tests. The SRC provided feedback and prompts to Anna on her use of the new strategies to help her internalize the recently acquired learning strategies. Anna then followed the cyclical loop to set goals, self-record performance and outcomes, and evaluate her goal progress and strategy effectiveness. Anna had set a goal of achieving a 75% on her next science test and used her newly acquired study strategies. She scored a 90% and the SRC showed her the connection between her grade and the strategies she used to prepare for the test.
Critique
After reading about the components of SREP, this case study provided a nice illustration of the program in action. I was able to follow Anna and the SRC through all steps and procedures to understand how the program worked. Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) provided helpful tables and figures with examples of questions asked and procedures followed during the diagnostic assessment, self-regulation microanalytic assessment questions, goals and intervention procedures used in the self-regulated learner development component, and a self-regulation graph used to train students to use the cyclical feedback loop of self-regulation.
I would have liked there to be more information about other students being trained with the SREP and its effectiveness. Since this article was published in 2004, I searched for more current articles that used this program and found SREP was implemented with high school students in 2008 as a tier two pull-out intervention program (Cleary, Platten, & Nelson, 2008). I was able to see that SREP continues to be successful with a variety of students. There was not any further information about the pilot study. I would have liked to have known more about it and if any changes were made to this program as a result of the pilot study.
Discussion
Cleary and Zimmerman (2004) found SREP to be an effective intervention but did state its limitations. Student participation in class as well as quality of peer relationships have an impact on increasing student motivation, study strategies, and self-regulatory skills which result in students’ success in school. Student cognitive, motivational, and cultural differences also limit the effectiveness of SREP. It was made clear that SREP’s procedures should not be rigidly applied to all students as this program is intended to take into account the characteristics of individual students. Quality of teacher feedback and the amount of chances students have to engage in the cyclical feedback loop impact the effectiveness of SREP when these strategies are implemented in the classroom.
Theoretical Implications
SREP was developed from social-cognitive theory and research. From a social cognitive perspective, self-regulation requires learner choice. Classic social cognitive perspective viewed self-regulation as including the processes of self-observation, self-judgment, and self-reaction. The cyclical model Zimmerman created was a result of social cognitive theory’s emphasis on the interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors.
Methodological Implications
Cleary and Zimmerman (2008) highly recommend that school psychologists supplement their norm-referenced assessments with microanalytic procedures when assessing children who have motivational and strategy deficiencies. Norm-referenced tests are important in evaluating a student’s cognitive, academic, and emotional profile but norm-referenced tests do not provide enough information about student’s knowledge and use of study and learning strategies.
Practical Implications
The SREP has many implications for school psychologists, counselors, and teachers. Due to SREP being an individualized assessment and intervention program, school psychologists and counselors may be able to provide this type of training although teachers may find it more difficult with large class sizes. However, teachers can incorporate SREP principles into their daily activities to increase students’ self-regulation problem-solving skills.
Reference
Cleary, T. J., Platten, P., & Nelson, A. (2008). Effectiveness of the self-regulation empowerment program with urban high school students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 70-107.
